Comparison between Empirical Models and the CBM-CFS3 Carbon Budget Model to Predict Carbon Stocks and Yields in Nova Scotia Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the global climate crisis, the Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry is using the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) and associated methodologies to assess the carbon dynamics of the provincial forestry sector. The CBM-CFS3 bases simulations on a range of studies and national forest inventory plots to predict carbon dynamics using merchantable volume yield curves. Nova Scotia has also maintained thousands of permanent forest sample plots (PSPs) for decades, offering the opportunity to develop empirical, province-specific carbon models. This study used PSP tree measurements and allometric equations to compute plot-level forest carbon models from the PSP dataset and compared their output to that of the CBM-CFS3 model. The PSP-based models were stratified into five forest types and predict the carbon for seven carbon pools as a function of the plot age. Predictions with the PSP- and CBM-CFS3 models were compared to observed PSP data at the plot level and compared against each other at the stand and landscape level. At the plot level, the PSP-derived models predicted carbon closer to the observed data than the CBM-CFS3 model, the extent of over- or under-estimation depending on the carbon pool and forest type. At the stand scale, the CBM-CFS3 model predicted forest carbon to within 3.1–17.6% of the PSP method on average. Differences in predictions between the CBM-CFS3 and PSP models decreased to within 2.4% of the PSP-based models at the landscape level. Thus, the implications of using one method over the other decrease as the prediction scale increases from stand to landscape level, and the implications fluctuate as a function of the forest type and age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".